Slashdot Mirror

If (and I'm assuming it is not the case and if you wanted to you could use only QT) you must use the entire KDE framework to build an app, well that locks you in to using all of KDE's libraries doesn't it?

Yes you could use Qt only. And "only" is semantics here, Qt4 provides you with everything you need for most apps (far, far more than GTK). Since Qt4 came out, the kdelibs really don't have much in them anymore that an application developer would care about if they're not targetting KDE specifically. There is some stuff, but a lot of it is mostly useful because of the integration it brings with other apps.
That doesn't mean you're locked in to anything though. With KDE 4, you'll even be able to link to the kdelibs and compile on Windows or OS X. You get all the features, and none of the porting.

Yelling at the GNOME guys because you need to include 5 libraries and 5 header files instead of one just tells me you're a lazy programmer.

Good programmers are lazy. That drives them to develop frameworks that allow you to do powerful things easily. If your framework isn't convenient to use (like, having to pull in 5 different libraries that have different api's and complicate the build and packaging process just to build a basic interface) makes developers invent their own thing, or do silly things like copying library code into their apps instead of linking to it. ( http://www.chipx86.com/blog/?p=205 )

Have you looked at http://www.chipx86.com/wiki/Leaftag

As one of the developers of both VMware Server 1.0 and Workstation 5.x, let me clear this up.

(Also, this blog entry might help with a few common misconceptions)

VMware Server, while similar in appearance and sharing much of the same functionality as Workstation, is a completely different product with a different use case and target audience. It is the successor to GSX, and is for people who want to set up, well, servers! The key feature that Server has that Workstation does not is remoting, where you run a server on a computer and connect to it from a separate computer via a remote console or web interface. The VMs can start up with the computer, shut down with it, and can be accessed by multiple users. The VMs also don't require an X installation to run the VMs, nor does it require any sort of UI to be running for the VM to run.

Workstation has a number of features that Server does not have. Among other differences, it supports multiple snapshots, teams of VMs (where multiple VMs can start up/shutdown together, can be in their own special network with custom NIC speeds and packet loss), and 3D acceleration in the guest (currently experimental, and requires DirectX in the guest for now). We have a lot in the works for the product, and the gap will widen.

The one difference that people seem to for some reason get upset over is the price. Workstation costs $189, while Server is free. People have asked me why they should get Workstation if Server is free. The answer is that you should get Workstation if it has the features you want. If Server is better suited to your requirements or budget, go ahead and get that. We're not trying to force you into buying Workstation, and we're in no way crippling the VMs. A VM made in Server should work in Workstation and Player just fine. Likewise, a VM made in Workstation should work in Server or Player.

Workstation is not somehow "better" than Server just because it costs more. It's a different product. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. Yes, Server is free while Workstation is not, and part of this is because that's where mid-level server virtualization products were heading. Microsoft was considerably lowering the price on Virtual Server in an effort to hurt GSX sales. Xen, while not a huge contender in the enterprise yet, is free and good work is being done on it. Workstation, however, is unique enough in its dev/test features and still has value that we and our customers still feel is worth something. And you'll see that value continue to grow over time, just as you will with our other products.

I hope that helped you understand why we're still charging for Workstation while Server is free. Choose whichever product you like: Player, Server, Workstation, ACE, ESX.. They're all fine choices, and they all offer solutions to different problems. It's not just about virtualization itself anymore. It's about what you can build on top of it.

(Opinions expressed here are my own and are not necessarily representative of VMware, yada yada.)

I don't have the link at hands, but i've read something like that (the tags thing) done by at least one Gnome developer. Ok, i think i found the link: http://www.chipx86.com/blog/?p=140 And yes, my sister uses the emblems, but only to differentiate directories, but she probably will use them more if she could make searches or filter files with them... (=

I have to say that Opera's menues are far from the most intuitive. I like the fact I can modify more in Opera than the other browsers but finding where to modify it can be a chore sometimes.

CSS is a mess. Brilliant in theory total nightmare in practice I wrote a page in IE using CSS and then tried to modify it for firefox. I found to my annoyance that unless I redesigned the page there was no way of writing CSS that would work for both without writing browser specific code.

This is pretty much the same of any browser.

On the official side of things though Opera has some of the best CSS and DOM implementation of all the browsers. The best site I found for it is http://nanobox.chipx86.com/browser_support.php#css It shows quite clearly that Opera is more compliant than Firefox 1.0 and easily matches Firefox 1.5. IE on the other hand is famed for its poor standards implementation, something they say they are going to improve considerably in IE7 so im looking forward to that. (Oh and I looked at quite a few comparison charts Firefox and Opera were never far away from each other on any of them.)

This isnt to say your site is incorrect its just that your site is built around firefox and IE (a good choice of browsers what with the majority of the world using one or the other). If you had built it with Opera in mind it would work just as well. If you built it specifically according to the standards then it would probably be broken, to some extent, in all three browsers. (As I say CSS = messy.) Opera and Firefox would be the browsers it would break the least in.

Of course that has no real baring, web sites are built around IE and then firefox. They are the top browsers and while they are, that will and should always be the case. Arguing that another browser has better CSS implementation is pointless if the browser cant support some of the functions that allow 99% odd of web sites to function. It is, however, an explanation for why Opera may break some sites,it isnt really Opera's fault. Until CSS is properly implemented in all browsers this will stay the same. (Something made much harder by the various browsers inventing new functions, and the W3C constantly trying to update, depricate and add new functions while the old ones are only half way there as they are. Makes me glad Im not purist enough to stop using tables to arrange things.)

Please remember that Opera is years behind the times when it comes to CSS and DOM compliance

Wrong.

Completely and utterly wrong.

A simple Google for web+browser+standards+support shows this at the top of the list http://nanobox.chipx86.com/browser_support.php

See? Opera is marginally ahead of Firefox 1.5 in compliance. Miles ahead of IE6 of course, but that's a given.

There's a reason that standards-conscious web developers really push to promote alternative browsers like Firefox and Opera. Internet Explorer is so far behind in standards support, it typically doubles or even triples the amount of time it takes me to develop a cross-browser webpage and also dramatically limits what I can do as far as lean code, style, and accessibility.

Take a look here to get a visual of how badly Internet Explorer is lagging behind other browsers: Standards support summary

I'm currently in the process of testing Firefox 1.5 for these tables, and I can say that the Total CSS support figure is now at 65%. For the mathematically uninclined, that's just about double Internet Explorer's. And from what I've heard about the IE7 development, it isn't going to make up much ground anytime soon.

A good overview about W3C-compliance of IE6, Firefox and Opera 8:
http://nanobox.chipx86.com/browser_support.php

Personally, I am sick of IE6 sucking big times and just develope W3C compliant HTML. No sweat in Opera and Firefox. For Internet Explorer, I just enable Dean Edwards IE7 enhancement. Yes, the website does get dependent on Javascript for IE, but it does cut enormously on my developement time, as I am not forced to use the minimal CSS1 support IE has as common denominator.

Whoever told you that Firefox was "100% compliant" was selling something.

Firefox whiffs some CSS2.1 rules among other things.

They may have solved the consistency problems, but the standards supports is in great part unimplemented. IE is still far behind its biggest competitors as can be seen easily by doing a quick comparison. The user might not care, but the developer does.

First, there are no devs of Trillian speaking in there, only forum moderators who are not involved in the development of the program, only support in the forums. And the MSN Messenger protocol is independent of the connecting client (ie, client version does not represent the protocol version). MSN Messenger 6.0 uses MSNP6, which has not currently been figured out by GAIM or Trillian. Trillian 0.74 and 1.0 Pro currently use MSNP5, and starting at MSNP7 there was a completly new authentication system (SSL). You can see one Gaim dev's captures here.
And After MSNP8 there is an interesting new P2P system. In short, there is a lot that has to be done before this deadline. It is possible (but unlikely) that Microsoft will help third parties (they did originally release the specs to MSNP2, and have helped Trillian in the past), but I believe it is unlikely considering they have not released any of the sucessive versions of the protocol until now.